Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ivy Axisur
|
Posted - 2008.09.29 21:07:00 -
[1]
Social Networking is the cornerstone of virtually every MMO. While Ambulation will be an excellent addition to address this, here are some additional suggestions that will aid in social networking.
Put an end to High-Sec combat.
Not by boosting Concord, but with a simple deactivation of weapons against players.
How this accomplishes social networking: Less risk involved in ad-hoc fleets and less risk in accepting new corp members = more player interactivity. It will also greatly reduce greifing which is no fun in any game. There are plenty of PVP zones in EVE, high sec doesnÆt need to be one of them. Concord can be removed completely.
Exceptions to the rule: Wars are easy enough to avoid by leaving a corp, or signing on with an alt for a week so forcing someone to fight is impossible anyway. However war could still exist between consenting corps. Kill rights would extend from 0.0 to highsec so that revenge will also be allowed. Kill rights would be issued in 0.0 as well.
Contract PVP between consenting individuals could also be implemented, perhaps in conjunction with a betting system and prize money. Corporations could also host their own PVP tournaments with this contract system.
|
Kiki Arnolds
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.09.29 21:14:00 -
[2]
EVE is about non-consensual PVP. Your proposal cripples that. One of the most exciting factors about eve is that you are never *safe*. I play EVE because it is not every other MMO |
Ivy Axisur
|
Posted - 2008.09.29 21:17:00 -
[3]
ThatÆs not true.
There is still low sec and 0.0 for non-consensual PVP.
CCP has already stopped the gank and war decs are easily avoided by corp switching, dropping to a NPC corp, or just playing with a different alt for a week.
ItÆs a game dude û you canÆt FORCE someone to fight you.
So instead of pretending that you can, why not just open up highsec to other options?
|
Jinx Barker
GFB Scientific
|
Posted - 2008.09.29 21:23:00 -
[4]
I don't think so. Hello Kitty Online is -->>>>THAT-->>>>WAY.
EVE has NON-Consensual PVP, which mean anyone can be attacked anywhere at any time. Yes? OK, then, by default this would mean if I want to kill your Pod while you are idling at the gate - lets say you have just lost your CNR to mission rats - I can do so, simply to add little more hurt to the plate; and, of course, vice-versa.
|
Kiki Arnolds
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.09.29 21:23:00 -
[5]
Entering lowsec or 0.0 is basically consenting to PVP... When your in highsec you are most likely trying to avoid PVP, thus making PVP that occurs there non-consensual. |
Ivy Axisur
|
Posted - 2008.09.29 21:32:00 -
[6]
I still pose the question: ôwhat high-sec PVP?ö ItÆs already consensual; it just needs to be cleaned up. Now that ganking is gone , what is there?
War decs are easy to avoid, those who engage in them choose to.
IÆve been in high-sec wars, and IÆve opted out of high-sec wars. ItÆs already consensual, the problem is that:
1: I have to drag my entire corp into the fight if I want to fight you. 2: I can accidentally shoot someone IÆm trying to remote rep, or smart-bomb them = me getting Concorded which is lame. 3: As a generally passive corp, have to carefully screen corp members to avoid trouble makers.
I think that my plan will actualy add PVP, thereby adding to the player skill set, thereby increasing the player base in 0.0 (which i also enjoy on occasion).
|
Kiki Arnolds
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.09.29 21:36:00 -
[7]
Highsec wars - sure people can chicken out and flee to the newb corp. Thats not justification for removing the ability to attack in highsec Suicide Ganks - Yes, it is now harder and much more expensive to suicide gank. It is still possible, and can be used to grief, or in rare circumstances, for profit Can Flipping Mision Jumping Corp infiltration and ganking
Still many forms of non-consensual pvp in highsec, not enough imo, but still there ç¦ |
Ivy Axisur
|
Posted - 2008.09.29 21:45:00 -
[8]
No offence Kiki, but really.. the current PVP in high-sec is pretty lame.
ItÆs all just basic greifing, usually NPC corps targeting inexperienced players. Those who are too scared to go into low/zero yet want to cause trouble. A small minority of players who generate angry petitions to CCP by harassing the less experienced.
That playing style would not be missed.
I agree with you though that corporate infiltration needs to stay. A corporationÆs rules should govern their internal operations, not outside influence.
|
Jinx Barker
GFB Scientific
|
Posted - 2008.09.29 21:53:00 -
[9]
EVE Punishes: Stupidity, Inattentiveness, Slack-Jaw[edness] (is this even a word?), and many other personal faults:
Example:
Your Statement: "I can accidentally shoot someone IÆm trying to remote rep, or smart-bomb them = me getting Concorded which is lame." The above statement is an example of: Stupidity, Inattentiveness, and a sign of being a Slack-Jawed yokel. Conclusion: You need to pay attention, be aware of your surroundings at all time, and not use idiotic things like Smart Bombs in Empire, or shoot you mate while you trying to fix him up. EVE IS UNFORGIVING - that is what you failed to grasp, exercise PRUDENCE in all your actions.
Your Statement: "I have to drag my entire corp into the fight if I want to fight you. " The above statement is an example of: Not being able to recognize or function within an established game mechanic that makes EVE unique in the sea of many other MMOS. The said mechanic being TEAM WORK, and various other incarnations thereof. EVE is not a single player game, ALTHOUGH, I would not mind if it gives a bit more to "single-oriented" players, thus provide more diversity. Conclusion: Reconsider your outlook on EVE, and your participation with them game, and your interaction with it.
Your Statement: As a generally passive corp, have to carefully screen corp members to avoid trouble makers. The above statement is a sign of: PRUDENCE - holy crap, you do know that prudence, and being aware of one's surroundings and corporation activities is important in EVE. Conclusion: There is someone upstairs after all, who can think logically, and not try to convert the game into something it was never meant to be!
|
Ivy Axisur
|
Posted - 2008.09.29 22:03:00 -
[10]
Your post is accurate û but itÆs also the problem. As my title announces, this is about improving social networking not indulging teenage Neanderthals. Some of us have a life and are not quite so HARDCORE.
Your post is accurate ûand itÆs exactly the mentality that keeps the game small.
You also failed to read (or comprehend) the original post.
|
|
Cailais
Amarr VITOC
|
Posted - 2008.09.29 22:24:00 -
[11]
The issue isn't that high sec should be ultra secure. The problem is high sec wars have no "win" or "defeat" conditions.
The solution in my view is that players attempting to escape a high sec war should be allowed to do so, but with some penalty (like a type of 'refugee' status). Equally Corporations should be able to surrender under enforceable terms (e.g you surrender but at a 'cost').
EVE is a unique game in the sense that an element of risk exists everywhere and at all times - that should not change. Ever.
C.
|
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
|
Posted - 2008.09.29 22:29:00 -
[12]
Your problem here is you assume that EVE is a game about social networking. It isn't. It's a game about building yourself a throne on a mountain of corpses of your defeated enemies (or in a metaphorical sense, for market PvP). It's a game about me and my friends dragging you into a dark alley, killing you, and taking everything you own. It's a game about you and your carebear corp either growing a spine and fighting back, or paying me protection money for the right to continue existing.
However, you did get one thing right: "Concord can be removed completely.". I approve of this idea 100%.
Oh, and there is no such thing as griefing in EVE. Deal with it, or go back to WoW. |
Ivy Axisur
|
Posted - 2008.09.29 22:49:00 -
[13]
I kind of agree with this; its not a bad idea - perhaps better than removing it all together:
"The issue isn't that high sec should be ultra secure. The problem is high sec wars have no "win" or "defeat" conditions."
To this point: ôYour problem here is you assume that EVE is a game about social networking.ö
Your right, itÆs not at all, but itÆs trying to be because it will increase the player base.
EVE needs more social networking and CCP is working on it with features like ambulation and with making the gank prohibitively difficult. They are working to expand their player base with advertisements on web sites and TV (in the US) and have stated that they are working to attract women to the game (not just female avatars).
In short - working to balance your type with the most socially adjusted players.
CCP is a business, and while I and they, can appreciate the hardcore players and fanboys that give the game its cult following, they are also looking for ways to expand the company, and its products.
Expansion requires policies that are inclusive not exclusive.
|
Kahega Amielden
Minmatar Suddenly Ninjas
|
Posted - 2008.09.29 23:02:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Ivy Axisur No offence Kiki, but really.. the current PVP in high-sec is pretty lame.
ItÆs all just basic greifing, usually NPC corps targeting inexperienced players. Those who are too scared to go into low/zero yet want to cause trouble. A small minority of players who generate angry petitions to CCP by harassing the less experienced.
That playing style would not be missed.
I agree with you though that corporate infiltration needs to stay. A corporationÆs rules should govern their internal operations, not outside influence.
Hisec PVP is needed for low/nullsec groups to disrupt their enemies. They shouldn't be untouchable just because they jump into hisec once in awhile.
|
Ivy Axisur
|
Posted - 2008.09.29 23:24:00 -
[15]
Hisec PVP is needed for low/nullsec groups to disrupt their enemies. They shouldn't be untouchable just because they jump into hisec once in awhile.
I agree with you compleatly on that.
|
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
|
Posted - 2008.09.29 23:38:00 -
[16]
You know, I could lecture you on how badly you understand EVE's fundamental design concept, but really, it would be a waste. So how about I just propose the only way your "social networking" highsec idea could ever work:
ALL level 2, 3 and 4 missions are moved to lowsec/0.0.
All ore other than small veldspar is moved to lowsec/0.0. To prevent barges from mining the entire belt before any newbies can get to it, barges can not activate mining lasers in highsec.
All production slots for ships over T1 frigate class, or modules other than T1 frigate-size, are moved to lowsec.
All exploration sites with a profit potential of over 100,000 ISK are moved to lowsec/0.0.
All NPC buy orders and trade routes with a profit potential of over 1 ISK per item are moved to lowsec/0.0.
If you want your perfectly safe space to social network without any conflict, you don't get to make money. No risk, no reward. |
Msgerbs
Gallente Imperial Assualt Guild Infused Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.09.30 03:01:00 -
[17]
So basically you want this to be WoW but in space? A genius idea, lets do it!
NOT! |
Arvald
Caldari Ninjas N Pirates
|
Posted - 2008.09.30 03:16:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Ivy Axisur ThatÆs not true.
There is still low sec and 0.0 for non-consensual PVP.
CCP has already stopped the gank and war decs are easily avoided by corp switching, dropping to a NPC corp, or just playing with a different alt for a week.
ItÆs a game dude û you canÆt FORCE someone to fight you.
So instead of pretending that you can, why not just open up highsec to other options?
they have not stopped suicide ganking, just make it a tad bit harder and if a corp moves the entire corp if you dec em you dec the corp they go to and if they do it again you petition it as its an exploit
|
Arvald
Caldari Ninjas N Pirates
|
Posted - 2008.09.30 03:19:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Ivy Axisur Your post is accurate û but itÆs also the problem. As my title announces, this is about improving social networking not indulging teenage Neanderthals. Some of us have a life and are not quite so HARDCORE.
Your post is accurate ûand itÆs exactly the mentality that keeps the game small.
You also failed to read (or comprehend) the original post.
EVE IS NOT A NICE GAME, and its not going to be, if you want more social netoworking (and yes i know this is overused and no i do not mean it as an insult in any way, to you or the game) go play wow, eve is about brining out your inner bastard and using to to beat the crap out of everyone else
|
Lanya O'Tega
|
Posted - 2008.09.30 06:13:00 -
[20]
"eve is about brining out your inner bastard and using to to beat the crap out of everyone else"
ahh I get it now, we are not in eve, we are in 4chan, thanks for clearing that up
|
|
chiisai sakana
|
Posted - 2008.09.30 08:34:00 -
[21]
Oh god! please no! Not the carebear beam
you are the reason people wardec random people who haven't done "anything" wrong (except flying with with a CNR with giant red letters saying "shoot me") Pirate POSes are fueled with carebear tears carebears aren't people. they are giant flying pinyatas!
|
Astria Tiphareth
Caldari 24th Imperial Crusade
|
Posted - 2008.09.30 09:14:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Kiki Arnolds EVE is about non-consensual PVP. Your proposal cripples that. One of the most exciting factors about eve is that you are never *safe*. I play EVE because it is not every other MMO
Originally by: Jinx Barker EVE has NON-Consensual PVP, which mean anyone can be attacked anywhere at any time. Yes?
Both of these statements sum up EVE. They come across as wrong at first glance, because high-sec PvP is strictly mostly consensual, but there's a core of truth in there anyway. I do have to disagree that the notion that just possibly some suicide ganker might vaporise my hauler in high-sec makes EVE exciting. For me it's just an added distinctly unlikely risk, but then perspective is everything.
At any point, anywhere, someone you've never met or heard of can blow you away. Nonetheless they will face consequences for that action - in high-sec, they get CONCORDed, in high-sec and low-sec they get a sec status hit, and in low-sec they face sentry guns. In 0.0 your alliance sets them to red. If you take sensible care in high-sec, and stay in an NPC corp, you're virtually immune unless someone really works hard.
High-sec is safer; it's not safe. I once wrote up a long post describing the different play-styles in EVE and how they caused balance issues because virtually all of them have an opposite (and so both pull EVE in opposite directions), but I never bothered posting it, since knowing the problem won't help find a solution and it'd just get trolled by people missing the point. The short version is that there are people that have zero interest in combat playing EVE and there are people who have zero interest in non-combat stuff playing EVE; both are needed, both disagree about how the game should be, and both are usually wrong in what they propose to 'fix' the game.
As to the suggestion, we can either strive for a working interactive universe which is even vaguely close to a realistic notion, or just abandon the whole thing and separate the areas of space into 'fluffy happy industry zone', 'free-for-all combat zone' and 'communist alliance lag-fest zone'. Personally I'd rather strive to keep trying to make EVE better rather than regress to that sort of noddy design. ___ My views may not represent those of my corporation, which is why I never get invited to those diplomatic parties... Environmental Effects
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |